IcePath icepath.io · Hockey Analytics
← New Search ↗ Social Card

Danielle Marmer Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: ⚠ Missing — add in admin Country: USA Height: 5'6" (168 cm)
No commitment set

Set Commitment

NCAA Division I

NCAA D3 / D2

Career Trajectory
Dashed = raw PPG  ·  ■ Solid blue = age-adjusted NCAAe-PPG  ·  ■ Green = actual college PPG
Junior Seasons
Season Team League GP G A Pts PPG NCAAe-PPG Age-Adj D3e-PPG Age-Adj
2011-12 Connecticut Polar Bears 19U 19U-AAA-W 26 5 3 8 0.308 0.1063 0.1063 — —
2012-13 Connecticut Polar Bears 19U 19U-AAA-W 30 11 10 21 0.700 0.2418 0.2418 — —
■ Blue = NCAAe (D1 anchor)   ■ Green = D3e (D3 anchor)   COVID-flagged seasons highlighted in yellow
College Seasons (Historical)
Season School Div Conference Year GP G A Pts PPG
2016-17 Quinnipiac D1 ECAC-W — 34 0 8 8 0.235
2015-16 Quinnipiac D1 ECAC-W — 37 1 3 4 0.108
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.16
before college
→
Actual FR PPG
0.11
2015-16 · Quinnipiac
-32.7% vs. projection

NCAAe Rankings

#4323
Forward overall
#172
in 19U-AAA-W

D1 Comparables

Sydney Brodt
USHS-MN-W · 2013-14 · 1.54 PPG
→ Minnesota Duluth (0.60 D1 FR PPG)
0.25 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Brooklynn Schugel
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 1.54 PPG
→ Minnesota Duluth (0.27 D1 FR PPG)
0.25 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Sara Hjalmarsson
SDHL · 2012-13 · 0.20 PPG
→ Providence (0.66 D1 FR PPG)
0.23 Strong
NCAAe PPG
Kiki Radke
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 1.58 PPG
→ Bemidji State (0.27 D1 FR PPG)
0.25 Developing
NCAAe PPG
Brooke Madsen
USHS-MN-W · 2012-13 · 1.60 PPG
→ Penn State (0.60 D1 FR PPG)
0.26 Strong
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Sydney Brodt
Minnesota Duluth ·
0.600 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Brooklynn Schugel
Minnesota Duluth ·
0.270 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG
Sara Hjalmarsson
Providence ·
0.657 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG

How to read this: NCAAe and D3e factors convert a player's junior PPG into expected NCAA scoring at the D1 or D3 level. Harder conferences → lower projected PPG for the same player. A strong junior player (e.g. USHL 0.90 PPG) will project much higher in NESCAC than Big Ten because the D3 scoring environment is lower-difficulty.

Strength factor: conferences above 1.0 are harder than average; below 1.0 are easier. The formula is: Base NCAAe PPG ÷ Conference Strength = Projected PPG.